Fathers for Justice

[fat hamster]

It's the extension of that product of her experience to this pidgenholing of all men that people find so offensive.

I didn't "pidgenhole" [sic] all men. I said most.

And sparkling, I don't regard my views as prejudices. Over the years I've met a heck of a lot of men, many of them fathers, and IME they tend to be less mature and more selfish than most of the mothers I've met.

Maybe I've only met the bad ones. In fact, I'd love to believe that was true. However the accusations, knee-jerkings, and mis-quotings of me (mainly by male posters) on this thread haven't done anything to change my views.

 

[Orang Utan]

Saying 'most' is just as bad as 'all' FFS - you would be crucified if you used similar terminlogy about ethnic groups.
You may have met a lot of bad fathers but you may also have met some good fathers who you have prejudged.

 

[MysteryGuest]

I didn't "pidgenhole" [sic] all men. I said most.

So that's alright, then. You remind me of those racists who make derogatory comments about ethnic minorities and then follow it up with "of course some of them work really hard and are really decent people - those ones I haven't got any complaint about".

 

[Orang Utan]

'You're alright though - you're one of the good ones'

 

[Nemo]

I didn't "pidgenhole" [sic] all men. I said most.

And then followed it up by saying that mothers of boys must be heartbroken which is what I found to be the most offensive thing you said (and that is with some stiff competition). You'd be up in arms if someone said that fathers/mothers of girls must be heartbroken so why should we accept it from you?

And sparkling, I don't regard my views as prejudices. Over the years I've met a heck of a lot of men, many of them fathers, and IME they tend to be less mature and more selfish than most of the mothers I've met.

Of course they're prejudices; leaving aside the fact that everyone has prejudices, I refuse to believe that you have sufficient empirical evidence of the male psyche to know how we think, or of our mothers being noticeably more heartbroken than those of girls. My dispute with your generalisation concerning fathers is already on the record.

Maybe I've only met the bad ones. In fact, I'd love to believe that was true. However the accusations, knee-jerkings, and mis-quotings of me (mainly by male posters) on this thread haven't done anything to change my views.

Where have you been mis-quoted? If you have been, it's your own fault for being so insulting and wording your rants so loosely. Do you have no conception of how offensive you have been on this thread? Did you really expect such thoughtless bigotry to pass without comment?

 

[freethepeeps]

£600 fine for protestor

Outside the court on Wednesday Mr Harrison said he had not seen his child for three years.

"All Mr Blair needs to do to stop us being here is let us have equal rights to our children," he said.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

This is what gets me. These men bleat on about supposed injustices, state the amount of time they havent seen their children for but give others no details with which to judge the 'fairness' or injustice they claim they have suffered. They arent allowed to reveal alot of detail granted but for all we know these men could have been really victimised or made their children into victims of their acts. We have no way of judging.

Thats where their whole campaign falls down around their ears

 

[bfg]

for all we know these men could have been really victimised or made their children into victims of their acts. We have no way of judging.

Thats where their whole campaign falls down around their ears

For al we know these men could have been fantastic devoted fathers to such an extent that an ex-partner used the best possible way of getting back at them by denying them access to their kids and having the present legal system as a convenient weapon for them to do this and get away with it.

Thats where the whole campaign fundamentally begins, (and grows very quickly by the look of things)

 

[fat hamster]

.........................

 

[bfg]

erm.....the self-harm threads are a bit further on, duck

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

For al we know these men could have been fantastic devoted fathers to such an extent that an ex-partner used the best possible way of getting back at them by denying them access to their kids and having the present legal system as a convenient weapon for them to do this and get away with it.

Thats where the whole campaign fundamentally begins, (and grows very quickly by the look of things)

They could be yes, I dont deny that but the campaign will have little credability until people like the one featured in the article are not permitted to campaign. They dilute ( if not completely shoot apart) any credibility F4J anbd that decent fathers who may have suffered genuine injustice have.
Theres a world of difference between someone genuinely denied contact for very good reason and someone denied without that good reason. Would you not agree? Or does F4J believe that fathers/mothers should be allowed access to their children no matter what the previous behaviour/circumstances???

Lets not also forget the fathers/mothers who use the system as a tool to beat their ex's with. It can work both ways

 

[freethepeeps]

So........ any parent who has ever done anything violent should lose the right to contact with their children, and more importantly, the children should lose the right to contact with the parent?

And F4J should fully investigate every claim made against the father before they "allow" him to campaign?

That seems kinda extreme........

 

[bfg]

They could be yes, I dont deny that but the campaign will have little credability until people like the one featured in the article are not permitted to campaign. They dilute ( if not completely shoot apart) any credibility F4J anbd that decent fathers who may have suffered genuine injustice have.
Theres a world of difference between someone genuinely denied contact for very good reason and someone denied without that good reason. Would you not agree? Or does F4J believe that fathers/mothers should be allowed access to their children no matter what the previous behaviour/circumstances???

Lets not also forget the fathers/mothers who use the system as a tool to beat their ex's with. It can work both ways

I do agree there will be some bad eggs amongst the membership, but, given the present law, there wil be a greater number of genuine victims of UK legislation there, too. If the system worked the other way round, and this was a 'mothers for justice' group, included in the membership would no doubt be some hideously awful, abusive mothers trying to manipulate for their own ends. You're right. it can work both ways.

bear in mind that, according to social services figures covering all recognised forms of abuse, overall mothers are more likely to abuse their kids than fathers (and don't worry, there's plenty of room for discussion on those figures on their own), I don't think that the 'some of those guys are abusive' claim can go too far to destroy F4Js case, really.

You've mentioned that fathers can be denied contact for good reason, and also fathers can be denied contact without good reason. The fact that latter exist, + the state allows this through its laws, is surely good enough reason, don't you think, for someone to challenge this. There's plenty of groups of people in this country who can be pissed on by the state without anybody representing them. The unemployed, for example, have little in the way of defence or representation. Parents who are denied contact with tgheir kids for no good reason surely deserve a voice, too.

I think one of the 'celebrity' figures behind this movement is Bob Geldof. If I'm right here (not sure I am yet), then regardless of what you think of him as a person, what kind of father do you think he is?

 

[Streathamite]

my contribution is highly relevant, from the point of view of how people react after the divorce. My parents divorced, very messily indeed when I was 2 - and this was in 1968, when there was a real stigma attached to it. Now, I'd like to stress that, altho' my parents had the mother of all custody battles, she did NOT try to prevent access - in fact, I got the impression that she found raising 3 kids alone (and working to support us) so stressful that she was only too glad to cart us off to his place each school holiday.
However, the war between them still went on; for my ma's part, a non-stop, relentless, 24/7 propaganda war, whereby my dad was demonised as Hitler & the Yorkshire Ripper combined. even today, I can absolutely guarantee to set her off on a 20-minute rant, merely by saying something positive about him. It truly is like Pavlov's dogs. and, of course, it was totally couner-productive - our immediate response was 'hang on, NO-ONE's that bad!'
my point is that I have a lot of sympathy for F4J. I entirely accept the points re; violent abusive partners/fathers. but I think they are a minority of the cases outlined here. IME, BOTH parents will happily use the children in a zillion different ways, against the other partner.
I also shudder to think what would have happened had my mother set off down that route!
and thank you to everyone who's pointed out that it's the kids who really matter.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I do agree there will be some bad eggs amongst the membership, but, given the present law, there wil be a greater number of genuine victims of UK legislation there, too. If the system worked the other way round, and this was a 'mothers for justice' group, included in the membership would no doubt be some hideously awful, abusive mothers trying to manipulate for their own ends. You're right. it can work both ways.

bear in mind that, according to social services figures covering all recognised forms of abuse, overall mothers are more likely to abuse their kids than fathers (and don't worry, there's plenty of room for discussion on those figures on their own), I don't think that the 'some of those guys are abusive' claim can go too far to destroy F4Js case, really.

You've mentioned that fathers can be denied contact for good reason, and also fathers can be denied contact without good reason. The fact that latter exist, + the state allows this through its laws, is surely good enough reason, don't you think, for someone to challenge this. There's plenty of groups of people in this country who can be pissed on by the state without anybody representing them. The unemployed, for example, have little in the way of defence or representation. Parents who are denied contact with tgheir kids for no good reason surely deserve a voice, too.

I think one of the 'celebrity' figures behind this movement is Bob Geldof. If I'm right here (not sure I am yet), then regardless of what you think of him as a person, what kind of father do you think he is?

Pretty good as far as I can see. However youve not answered the question i put to you.Youve just trotted out a load of stuff, none of which i disagree with

Could you answer this though..... Is it not counter productive to allow fathers who have been denied contact for a good reason to campaign at their supposed injustice alongside men who have suffered genuine injustice.????
Do you believe it helps the campaign and its credibility???

 

[General Ludd]

Is it not counter productive to allow fathers who have been denied contact for a good reason to campaign at their supposed injustice alongside men who have suffered genuine injustice.????

Yes, it is counter-productive. But how do you work out who to allow to join and who not? I'm pretty sure all the fathers will claim they've been suffered a genuine injustice so without F4J doing extensive research on everyone who applies to join it'd be impossible for them to distinguish.

 

[freethepeeps]

And a lot of the incidents will be the word of one party against the other.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Might be prudent not to allow those who admit( freely) to a history of violence and breaching injunctions for harrassment to give interviews on F4J's behalf then.

 

[freethepeeps]

Can you understand why a father might want to say "happy birthday" to a child?

 

[General Ludd]

Might be prudent not to allow those who admit( freely) to a history of violence and breaching injunctions for harrassment to give interviews on F4J's behalf then.

Yep, that would be sensible. Although ROH admitted earlier on this thread that he breached injuctions and I don't think that means he should be barred from anything. Clearly though if the person admits beating his wife then putting him up for interview is a very very stupid thing to do. (I assume by a history of violence you mean a history of violence against their family, rather than a conviction for shoving a police officer say, because I'd consider that irrelevant to custody)

 

[Cid]

Might be prudent not to allow those who admit( freely) to a history of violence and breaching injunctions for harrassment to give interviews on F4J's behalf then.

Yes, but people do learn and if it's in the child's interests to see both parents, then they should be able to - even if it's under the supervision of a social worker. Some people react very badly to stressful situations (social stigma on mental issues like bipolar, manic depression etc probably doesn't help), which I'm not saing is any justification for abuse, but it is a reason, if a child wants to see the parent in a safe situation, then they should be able to even if they've been abusive in the past - after all there's a lot to be said for confronting fears and gradually patching up relationships. Of course if there's any risk of physical harm to the kid then a lot of care should be taken to make sure this doesn't happen.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I assume by a history of violence you mean a history of violence against their family, rather than a conviction for shoving a police officer say, because I'd consider that irrelevant to custody)

Oh totally it has to be relevent to the case. if either party is beating the other then I think safeguards need to be looked into for the childs sake ( and I use parties becuase either sex can be partner abusing nut jobs)

Shoving a police officer at a protest is different kettle of fish. If I meant that I;d have had to see my own mother in the presence of a social worker/friend/other relative ( might have helped actually, think of the bargaining power shes a game old bird my mum)

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Yes, but people do learn and if it's in the child's interests to see both parents, then they should be able to - even if it's under the supervision of a social worker. Some people react very badly to stressful situations (social stigma on mental issues like bipolar, manic depression etc probably doesn't help), which I'm not saing is any justification for abuse, but it is a reason, if a child wants to see the parent in a safe situation, then they should be able to even if they've been abusive in the past - after all there's a lot to be said for confronting fears and gradually patching up relationships. Of course if there's any risk of physical harm to the kid then a lot of care should be taken to make sure this doesn't happen.

I totally agree, sadly though where there is domestic abuse the children often get abused too ( caught in crossfire etc) I dont think there should be a presumption either way that the children do or dont want to see an abusive parent. I certainly think if they are small children then access should be supervised until such time that the children are able to discuss with others what they feel ( junior school age maybe???) Unless the child is obviously scared of the parent in which case I think that needs to be respected as so not a good idea and notions of confonting fears need to be thrown out of the window

 

[bfg]

Pretty good as far as I can see. However youve not answered the question i put to you.Youve just trotted out a load of stuff, none of which i disagree with

Could you answer this though..... Is it not counter productive to allow fathers who have been denied contact for a good reason to campaign at their supposed injustice alongside men who have suffered genuine injustice.????
Do you believe it helps the campaign and its credibility???

Course its counter-productive, but there's fuck-all chance of a group like this being able to set up a comprehensive enough vetting system for this to happen. But there's a cause there to fight, so to do absolutely nothing because just in case there might be a few wife-beaters in the numbers achieves even less.

The StoptheWar demos had BNP, the usual twats who claim to be C18, and a lot of the other odious fash twats in the total head count. No-one could stop that really, and it was good enough foe everyone to make their voices heard (even tho the twat who should have been listening chose not to). Vetting everyone wasn't an option there either, nor was it with any other protests in the past, IIRC.

 

[Cid]

I totally agree, sadly though where there is domestic abuse the children often get abused too ( caught in crossfire etc) I dont think there should be a presumption either way that the children do or dont want to see an abusive parent. I certainly think if they are small children then access should be supervised until such time that the children are able to discuss with others what they feel ( junior school age maybe???) Unless the child is obviously scared of the parent in which case I think that needs to be respected as so not a good idea and notions of confonting fears need to be thrown out of the window

Can't really think of anything to say to that except yes, but surely this gives f4j some credibilty? Although I admit i haven't read that much about their precise motives and aims.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

The StoptheWar demos had BNP, the usual twats who claim to be C18, and a lot of the other odious fash twats in the total head count. No-one could stop that really, and it was good enough foe everyone to make their voices heard (even tho the twat who should have been listening chose not to)..

HMMM I dont recall a stop the war movement allowing the twats to be interviewed by national journos.
It seems F4J have one hell of alot to learn about how the media works and how people will percieve them if their stance can be weakened by the calibre of the interviewee

 

[bfg]

Now you really are nit-picking and indulging in busy-being-offended moments beyond the call of duty. The whole point of the comment I raised was that movements such as these need to be judged on the issues they are protesting for/against, ie whats known as 'the big picture', not by looking and wondering if theres any unsavoury characters in the membership.

As a little exercise for you, take a look at the more famous activists who actually fought for notable change and achieved it, for example people like the Suffragettes, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, etc - do people look back on their actions and think votes for women/self-rule/end of apartheid were unworthy cause cos there were a few dodgy buggers in the movement. There probaby were, somewhere, but it really didn't matter that much

 

[reallyoldhippy]

It seems F4J have one hell of alot to learn about how the media works

I doubt very much in your struggle to keep your children safe, you gave one moments thought to how the media works. It certainly didn't enter my head. Desperate times and all that.

 

[Shmu]

But I thought they were looking for understanding? People giving into their demand because they don't want anymore trouble would maybe help the situation at the time, but it wouldn't be good for anyone in the long run. And it would be something of a hollow victory would it not, though I can see how they would probably take any victory at the moment.

I think that in these particular circumstances where men are supposedly trying to bring sympathy to their cause as responsible parents who are being descriminated against, dressing up in childish costumes and acting like big children is unhelpful, but violent acts would be even more unhelpful.

I disagree that it would have any hope in helping their cause.

I agree that custody law is unfairly weighted against men.

Although I don't disagree with the principle of direct action, I think that this type of direct action in this context is probably counterproductive. The majority of the public and the establishment are likely to view these men as childish and iresponsible and are much less likely to take on board the legitimate cause here.

Personally, I'd like to see each case taken on its own merits. This would still mean that on the whole, mothers are going to be given a lot more custody rights, as, certainly in the world in which I move, the majority of families still rely most heavily on the mother to take responsibility for the children. Even where the mother works, it is usually the mother who will fit her work around the childcare arrangements and organise these arrangements, staying in touch with issues such as in-service days at school etc. Which is not to say that many fathers aren't much more involved in their children's lives and care than men traditionally used to be. And obviously, there are families where it is the father who takes on the main responsibility for ensuring the children's wellbeing.

In my experience though, families where a father even does an equal amount of child care tend to be viewed by everyone around as rather unusual and the man is lavishly praised for his amazing fatherhood.

 

[General Ludd]

I think that in these particular circumstances where men are supposedly trying to bring sympathy to their cause as responsible parents who are being descriminated against, dressing up in childish costumes and acting like big children is unhelpful

What do you think would be helpful? There have been lots of fathers group that have existed for a long time and they've done all the sensible things you're meant to do like write letters and noone has heard of them and nothing has changed.

Although I don't disagree with the principle of direct action, I think that this type of direct action in this context is probably counterproductive.

It's not really direct action though, they're performing media stunts in the hope that the government will change the law. That's not direct action, that's almost precisely how I'd define indirect action.